Dismissed

Yelamanchili Sri Chaitanya Dev v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Apr 2024WA/309/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal challenging a lower court order directing the licensing authority to consider objections raised by a petioner regarding an application for a fish tank licence. The High Court held the order was innocuous and did not prejudge rights. Appeal dismissed as application subsequently rejected below.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Yelamanchili Sri Chaitanya Dev Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

W.A.No: 309 OF 2074

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the orders passed in W.P.No.3350/2024 dated 8-2-2024 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Yelamanchili Sri Chaitanya Dev, Male, aged 54 years. Cultivation, S/o. Late Mahesh Chandra Chowdary, R/o.Flat No.204, Navya Enclave,

¶10

Ashoknagar, Eluru. Eluru District.

¶11

Yelamanchili Nagamalleswari, Female, aged 51 years. Occupation

¶12

House wife, W/o. Late Gnaneswar, R/o. Parlerlamudi (V), Nuzividu (M),

Eluru District.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh,' rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government(Anima! husbandry. Dairy Development and Fisheries Department) A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. Guntur District,

¶17

The District Level Committee for Registration of Aquaculture, Eluru

¶18

District rep. by its Chairman-cum-The District Collector, Eluru District, Eluru.

¶19

Assistant Director of Fisheries, Govt, of A.P. Postal Colony, Srinivasa Nagar, Eluru. Eluru District.

¶20

District Fisheries Officer, Govt, of A.P. Postal Colony, Srinivasa

¶21

Nagar,Eluru. Eluru District.

¶22

Fisheries Development Officer, Pedapadu (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru District.

¶23

■'/

¶24

The Tashildar, Pedapadu (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru^District.

¶25

Gundapaneni Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Late Basava Sobhanadri, hindu, aged 65 years, Occupation Cultivation. Koniki (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru District. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to Dispense with filing of original order copy in W.P,No.3350/2024 dated: 8-2-2024.

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court pleased to direct the Respondents to grant fish tank^{licencefordiggingof} fish tank for agricultural land (Vacant land) of an^{extentofAc.4.50centsin} R.S.NO.292/IB and another extent of Ac.2.93 cents (vacant land) in R.S.N0.292/1A situated in Koniki (V), Pedapadu (M),^{EluruDistrictthwithin} Acqua culture Zone and without taking into consideration^{of7THrespondent} objections.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. B. P. RAJU

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR FISHERIES Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI. CH. RAVI KUMAR

¶30

REPRESENTING SRI BRP SEKHAR

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

APHC010118502024

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶34

Bench Sr.No;-5 [3446]

¶35

WRIT APPEAL NO: 309 of 2024

¶36

Yelamanchili Sri Chaitanya Dev and another.

¶37

...Appellant(s)

¶38

Vs.

¶39

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶40

...Respondent(s)

¶41

¶42

Sri B P RAJU, Advocate for Appellants.

¶43

AGP for Fisheries, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to^5.

¶44

GP for Revenue, Advocate for Respondent No.6

¶45

Sri CH Ravi Kumar, representing Sri B R P Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent No.7.

¶46

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶47

DATE : 23rd April 2024

¶48

PC :

¶49

The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 08.02.2024, passed in WP.No.3350 of 2024.

¶50

In the earlier round of litigation, appellants herein filed WP.Nos.881 and 882 of 2024 which were disposed of by virtue of judgment and order, dated 10.01.2024 with a direction to the petitioners to submit a fresh application for grant of license to dig fish tank which was to be considered and disposed by the respondent authorities in accordance with

¶51

law.

¶52

¶53

HG & RRR,J WA_309_2024

¶54

In the second round of litigation, the petitioner (respondent No.7 herein) preferred WP.No.3350 of 2024 wherein it was alleged that the appellants herein (respondents No.7 & 8 in the writ petition) had applied for a licence for operating a fish tank and in the process of establishing the fish tank had encroached a portion of the petitioner’s property, It was in those circumstances that the petitioner in WP.No.3350 of 2024 sought a Mandamus to respondents No.2 to 6 therein to consider the objections raised by the petitioner before any orders could be passed on the application submitted by the appellants herein.

¶55

The petition was finally disposed of by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, dated 08.02.2024 wherein the learned single Judge directed that before proceeding further in issuing the fresh licence for establishing the fish tank by respondent Nos.7 & 8 (appellants herein) appropriate orders be passed on the objections raised by the petitioner on 25.01.2024 and 31.01.2024.

¶56

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there was no dispute at all with regard to the land in question and that there was no encroachment ever made by the appellants over the land belonging to the writ petitioner.

¶57

It is stated that the matter had been settled by the Tahsildar concerned who had conducted the demarcation on the spot and issued endorsement on 18.11.2023 and thus there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to

¶58

Ha & RRR,J WA 309 2024

¶59

¶60

have directed the concerned licensing authority to consider the

¶61

representations/objections of the petitioner.

¶62

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶63

We are of the opinion that the directions issued by^thelearned single Judge are quite innocuous in character and do not finally determine the rights of the parties which would prejudice the appellants herein in any manner. The direction simpliciter is for consideration of the objections raised by petitioner while issuing fresh licence for digging^{fishtankinfavourofthe} appellants which are required to be considered by the concerned authority. All the material which the appellants wish to rely upon with a view to establish their case that there was in fact no encroachment over the land belonging to the petitioner could be placed before the licensing authority which would take a considered view on the same.

¶64

At this stage, counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 submits^thatthe application filed by the appellants for grant of licence has since been rejected. If that be so, it would be open to the appellants to^{workouttheirremediesin} accordance with law.

¶65

The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order^astocosts.

¶66

¶67

HCJ & RRR,J WA_309_2024

¶68

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed.

SD/- M. RAMESH BABU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRI B. P. RAJU Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

Two CCs to GP FOR FISHERIES High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶76

[OUT]

¶77

Two CCs to GP FOR REVEUE High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶78

One CC to SRI CH RAVI KUMAR. REPRESENTING SRI BRP SEKHAR. Advocate [OPUC]

¶79

Three C.D. Copies

MBT

HIGH COURT

TIME LIMIT

DATED:23/04/2024

ORDER WA.No.309 of 2024

¶86

DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS

¶87

Cop
2X>dC<br>oh

Yelamanchili Sri Chaitanya Dev v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yelamanchili Sri Chaitanya Dev v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs The Lakshmi Traders

Naidu Hanumanth Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Palamangalam Chenga Reddy

Smt. Kucharlapati Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Akshinthala Guru Prasad Gupta

Amaravti Rajadhani Sameekarana Raithu Samakya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sri Sri Veeranjaneeya Swamy Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh